The Age old Question: Marvel Vs. DC?

[bean6344]

O'Neil/Cowan - The Question.

So it's settled? Both publishers are awesome?

I almost threw that one in but didn't want to come off as pandering.
 
Don't forget
Wolfman/Perez- Crisis on Infinite Earths.

[JimN]

I'll try, because I think Marvel has those but they are more embedded within their actual universes:

Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four
Byrne/Claremont X-Men
Lee/Ditko Spiderman
Miller/Janson Daredevil

I started a post that listed the same four runs but you phrased the point better.

I'm trying to think of runs this influential and iconic at DC...

They exist. The Moore/Bissette/Totleben run on Swamp Thing immediately comes to mind.

— The O'Neill/Adams GL/GA comics
— In fact, a lot of Adams' work from that time, including Deadman and Batman comics, made a significant impact
— Kirby's major contributions to DC weren't terribly successful commercially but they've become influential and revered over time
— Englehart/Rogers run on Detective
— Gotham Central (this may be too recent to measure it's impact and influence)

I'm sure there are more, just as there are more from Marvel. Both companies have employed a lot of talented people over the years and they've created some great comics.

Edit: Oops! A bunch of people beat me to those points. Sorry to be repetitive.

Jim

[Bobgar Ornelas]

Moore's Swamp Thing? Morrison's Animal Man and Doom Patrol?

I LOVE Morrison's Doom Patrol, but Moore's Swampy is the better read (for my tastes)

[Jeppe]

Vertigo 

[Lawrence]

I LOVE Morrison's Doom Patrol, but Moore's Swampy is the better read (for my tastes)

 

I would certainly call myself more of a fan of Marvel then DC but nothing in my opinion touches Moore's swamp run. From story to art it was a masterpiece. If Bissette was drawing at DC today the way he drew those issues he would be called a futurist.

[David]

It depends on how you want to define "works". The 3 you listed are neatly defined, out-of-continuity limited series that conveniently stand as single works (like Marvels, which some folks might compare favorably with the above). However, I think there are runs of Marvel titles that stack up well against them. The Gerber-penned run of Howard the Duck comes to mind...

That was my line of thinking, too, Jim.  And Marvels was the first thing that popped into my head.

Agreed.  A few great 'one-hit wonders' over the last 40 years.

 

[miraclemet]

I dont know what it is but so far DC's characters have lended themselves to singular iconic pieces of work (All Star Superman, Dark Knight Returns) or their creators have generated iconic pieces of work (Watchmen).

So theres something about either the company (that allowed Moore to create Watchmen) or the characters (Superman, Batman) that lends itself towards singular iconic stories.

Marvel on the otherhand, with their Bullpen style, and later with the Bullpen mentality have been at their best in creating long runs and big environments for their characters to play in. They've all been listed before me, but you get the point. Marvel's world building lends itself to creating a bigger atmosphere, so there are fewer singluar stories like the ones that DC has, or maybe they just get overshadowed because of the more long run success of the Icons like Simonson's Thor, and the other titles mentioned.

DC also seems more willing (or maybe just has more success so I remember it better) with non-continuity driven stories liek DKR and All Star Superman... a good example of one from marvel (though it is sorta in continuity) was Days of Future Past in the X-Men line... but again it just gets sucked up into the Claremont/Byrne X-Men run rather than standing alone like the two DC stories...

[Chris]

I think Marvel has sustained a higher baseline for their product, but DC has higher peaks.

[Tom Scioli]

Marvel, of course. It's the house that Jack built. Most of the good stuff DC has done is when Marvel guys come over. Kirby's Fourth World was Marvel at DC. Dark Knight Returns? It was the Daredevil team on Batman. DC doesn't have the back catalog Marvel has. DC is built on creaky foundations. You go back 50 years, you've got Kirby, Ditko and Lee doing some of the best work that's ever been done in the medium. What does DC have? DC didn't build a universe organically with a small number of creators the way Marvel did. DC bought other comics company's characters. That's why there's no cohesion to their universe. They could use that to their advantage, but they haven't. They're trying to emulate Marvel's one universe concept, but what they should be doing is thinking in terms of franchises. They have a million different incompatible concepts that they're trying to combine with each other, rather than letting them stand on their own.

[Swany]

i don't really have a horse in this race but if push came to shove i would be a DC guy.

Now to Chris'
DKR
Watchmen
All-Star Superman

Marvel's answer to that might be

Squadron Supreme
Marvels
Planet Hulk

[jdudley]

I think marvel curretly has a higher number of enjoyable titles due t the fact that they have a larger number of talented writers. So between DC and Marvel's superhero universes I have to go with marvel. But with the inclusion of Vertigo DC surpasses marvel.

But yes, when I'm thinking superhero comics marvel is where it's at for me and particularly of late.

[deadcowaroma]

I LOVE Morrison's Doom Patrol, but Moore's Swampy is the better read (for my tastes)

I've been working through both runs and I'd be hard pressed to pick a favorite. You're right though, Swamp Thing us probably technically the better work.

[Cory]

Marvel is better when it comes to comics. 

DC is better in other media.

[Dotanuki]

I care about more of DC's shared-universe than I do Marvel's so I tend to buy more of their superhero-soap-opera. Whom I think is making "better comics" changes month to month/issue to issue.

If you'd asked me this question in '00 my answer would be "who cares, when's the next LW&C Dark Horse reprint coming out?" No publisher deserves "zombie status" from me, IMHO; they all deserve a chance at my dwindling dollars.

[JimN]

Marvel, of course. It's the house that Jack built. Most of the good stuff DC has done is when Marvel guys come over. Kirby's Fourth World was Marvel at DC. Dark Knight Returns? It was the Daredevil team on Batman.

What difference does that make, Tom? Those books were still created for DC. They weren't Marvel comics.

DC doesn't have the back catalog Marvel has. DC is built on creaky foundations. You go back 50 years, you've got Kirby, Ditko and Lee doing some of the best work that's ever been done in the medium. What does DC have?

For starters they have two of the most recognizable superhero characters in the world, Batman and Superman (they're probably the two most recognizable superheroes).

If you go back 50 years, I agree DC is at a disadvantage in terms of the overall quality of the material but I don't think it's accurate to say "most" of the good stuff DC has done was when Marvel creators went to DC. For example, some of the greatest creators in comics history did some of their best and/or most significant work at DC. Some eventually did work for Marvel, some didn't and some went back and forth between the two companies but Joe Kubert, Neal Adams, Berni Wrightson, Mike Kaluta, Alan Moore, Walt Simonson, Marv Wolfman, Len Wein and others all made some of their most significant contributions to comics at DC, often before doing any significant work for Marvel.

DC didn't build a universe organically with a small number of creators the way Marvel did. DC bought other comics company's characters. That's why there's no cohesion to their universe. They could use that to their advantage, but they haven't. They're trying to emulate Marvel's one universe concept, but what they should be doing is thinking in terms of franchises. They have a million different incompatible concepts that they're trying to combine with each other, rather than letting them stand on their own.

That's an interesting point. 

Jim

[Chris Campbell]

why do you make me choose between my comic children?  







p.s. Marvels can't touch the books that Chris mentioned.  With a pole.  that extends.

[JimN]

p.s. Marvels can't touch the books that Chris mentioned.  With a pole.  that extends.

Perhaps not... I never finished Marvels (missed the last issue and never bought a collection) but I remember it being pretty good. I can't speak to the quality of All-Star Superman but DKR and Watchmen have become sacred cows, trotted out endlessly as examples of the finest the medium has to offer. Frankly, I think they may both be overrated at this point and I say that as a BIG fan of Watchmen in particular. They're great comics but they are not the alpha and omega of comics quality. They aren't untouchable and, in fact, all of the creators involved have arguably done better work. That may seem like sacrilege but as much as I like both works, it gets tiresome seeing them treated as if they represent some sort of unassailable comics perfection. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, Chris. I'm just saying something that's been on my mind for a while.

Jim

[Steve Raker]

Marvel, of course. It's the house that Jack built. Most of the good stuff DC has done is when Marvel guys come over. Kirby's Fourth World was Marvel at DC. Dark Knight Returns? It was the Daredevil team on Batman. DC doesn't have the back catalog Marvel has. DC is built on creaky foundations. You go back 50 years, you've got Kirby, Ditko and Lee doing some of the best work that's ever been done in the medium. What does DC have? DC didn't build a universe organically with a small number of creators the way Marvel did. DC bought other comics company's characters. That's why there's no cohesion to their universe. They could use that to their advantage, but they haven't. They're trying to emulate Marvel's one universe concept, but what they should be doing is thinking in terms of franchises. They have a million different incompatible concepts that they're trying to combine with each other, rather than letting them stand on their own.

I think Tom just won the internet

[Chris Campbell]

Perhaps not... I never finished Marvels (missed the last issue and never bought a collection) but I remember it being pretty good. I can't speak to the quality of All-Star Superman but DKR and Watchmen have become sacred cows, trotted out endlessly as examples of the finest the medium has to offer. Frankly, I think they may both be overrated at this point and I say that as a BIG fan of Watchmen in particular. They're great comics but they are not the alpha and omega of comics quality. They aren't untouchable and, in fact, all of the creators involved have arguably done better work. That may seem like sacrilege but as much as I like both works, it gets tiresome seeing them treated as if they represent some sort of unassailable comics perfection. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, Chris. I'm just saying something that's been on my mind for a while.

Jim

The sacred cows comment is very appropriate.


My personal opinion is that while they're not "untouchable", they simply haven't yet been touched.  Watchmen is fantastic and something may come along that I think is a better story, but it ain't come round here yet. 

[JimN]

The sacred cows comment is very appropriate.

My personal opinion is that while they're not "untouchable", they simply haven't yet been touched.  Watchmen is fantastic and something may come along that I think is a better story, but it ain't come round here yet. 

I think it comes down to personal taste. For some, they haven't been touched yet. For others, they've been equaled or surpassed or weren't that great in the first place. Personally, I think they're great landmarks in comics history but there are comics I like just as much.

Anyway, i've made my point and I don't want to hijack the thread!

Jim